What are they teaching kids about finance and budgeting?

My eighth grade daughter just participated in a program on finances and budgeting sponsored by Junior Achievement. A Junior Achievement teen personal finance survey reports that more than half of teens are not confident that they will make sound choices in terms of credit. Moreover, nearly all teens think they should have a credit card by age 21. The survey observes:

“Teens are admitting that they don’t have knowledge of some of the basic money management skills around investing, budgeting and using credit. Despite the alarming numbers, teens overwhelmingly have high hopes for future financial stability. The poll shows we need to do a better job of ensuring our youth are financially literate. JA offers a broad range of age-appropriate financial literacy curricula, from kindergarten through grade 12.”

So, all of this sounds a little dire. Making the work of Junior Achievement even more important, of course. And perhaps a few basic tips from Suzi Orman are in order? Not surprisingly, we talk to our daughter about making wise choices and living within her means. This would include everything from buying items on sale to purchasing used items on sites like Craigslist. We also talk to her about being a good citizen in terms of the environment as well, including walking and biking when possible. That is, not everyone (particularly college students) needs a car.

I was ready to embrace the Junior Achievement concern to educate teenagers, until my daughter started asking me questions about the workbooks her teacher assigned. She understood her profile to be a college student who has a job earning about $30,000 per year. A little unrealistic for a college student, but all right. The program has the student fill out budgets. This is where my daughter had many questions and I simply could not support the choices the program expected. For instance:

1. The workbook not only mandated that she purchase a car (whether she could afford it or not), but also required her to take out a five year loan on the car. In the summer Oprah magazine, Suzi Orman yet again blasted this practice advising against car loans more than 36 months or less (7 Deals You Should Never Make). Basically, perhaps one needs to shop for a less expensive car.


2. The workbook also mandated that she replace $650 of household furnishings and that she must put it on a credit card and pay for it that way. Apparently, no option to save up and buy in cash or to purchase something used.


3. The workbook required an apartment. While the student could get roommates, there was no easy way for the student to select a less costly alternative of living in a college dormitory where utilities, rent and food are typically included.

In the end, I advised her on how to best fill out her worksheets making the least devastating decisions. She did budget for buying household furnishings with cash and saving most of the money as a down-payment for the car. While I might have been fine with this if it was designed to teach teens the devastating impact of debt, there were no comparisons to other models or advise on better decisions. I also wrote a note in the workbook for the teacher asking him not to teach our children that it is fine to enter into these types of credit and financial situations.

The result of all this? The teacher was angry with her when he saw the worksheets and gave her a D for not following the program requirements. She had waited until the last minute to finish this, so her work was not as neat as it should have been, but really? Maybe the teacher will reconsider. In the end, I'd rather her get a D on the junior achievement and an remain solvent for a lifetime. Isn't all this debt part of what lead to the financial crisis?

- JSM

So, What's in Your Wallet?

Katie Porter over at Creditslips did a piece on the cards that those who teach payment law might carry! It is an interesting read. See What's in Our Wallets?

As for me? As those who follow this blog know, I am not a fan of any cards. And, I mean that pretty much universally. From high interest rates to deceptive practices, I just don't like them. My recent dispute over an instance of credit card skimming has only increased my suspicions about card practices, even though the issuer finally capitulated and reversed the fraudulent
charge. Despite my widespread condemnation of cards, I find them necessary. Like others, I am not a fan of debt and prefer paying off balances whenever possible. Yet, having bought a home this summer, I've found a Lowe's card particularly useful! This card issued by GE Money Bank comes with many of the aspects like high interest rates that I dislike about cards. But, having a home that needs appliances and quite a bit of do-it-yourself initiative, Lowe's offers of no interest financing on many 6 and 12 month purchases is a plus. The risk is that if you don't pay off the amount in the time frame the interest is high, but for card users with discipline, the no interest deals are a nice way to spread out large home improvements over several months.

- JSM

The Newest Identity Thief: Grandma

Identity theft by relatives appears to be on the rise. One young lady was shocked to find out that her 71 year old grandmother opened a credit card in the grand-daughter's name: and did not pay the bill (See, Family Credit Card Fraud). While wrong, the difficulty of the whole matter is obvious. Who wants to put grandma in jail for fraud? Other common identity victims are children, whose parents sometimes open accounts in their names and don't pay (See The Newest Identity Thieves: Parents; All in the Family). Crime and wrong-doing in one's own family is not unheard of. After all, I just taught Gimpel v. Bolstein this week where the family ousted one relative from employment at the family farm after he embezzles some $80,000+. The thief ultimately sues on a claim that his stock is worthless in a company without a job or dividends and the court agrees (at least as to dividends or buying him out). So, stealing in one's own family . . . yes it happens.

Here though, the problem is not only might the relative have to shoulder the financial loss, but sustain damage to their credit score if they don't turn in grandma. Most card issuers require a police report in order to document the account fraud. There is definitely a heavier loss here than presented in Gimpel where the thief lost his job but was not prosecuted . . . and the family farm just lost the money. While I condemn the thieves here, card issuers have some responsibility as well for issuing cards in children's names in the first place. While card issuers have responsibility for fraud, they seem to find clever ways to shift it back to consumers (See credit card skimming).

- JSM

Credit Card Skimming and Card Issuers Behaving Badly

This past June I attended the CALI Conference, hosted by Rutgers University - Cambden. I stayed in the Philadelphia area for about ten days, since my sister lives there. I have a credit card that I often use for business and did on this particular trip. Not having used the card, which is currently in a locked box in Florida, since that trip, there should be no new charges. Yet, on August 20, 2010 two new charges appeared on my card from convenience stores located well outside of the Philadelphia area. Moreover, the record indicated that the user presented my card for the transactions, which I later learned were made at gas pumps with no receipt or documentation. As the card is here with me in Florida, I know I did not present it in Pennsylvania and that someone replicated my card.

Counterfeiters can replicate your credit card by "skimming" the data information from the card's magnetic strip during an ordinary transaction. (See Visa, Credit Card Fraud). They then use the information to make replica cards and engage in fraudulent transactions. The skimming behavior is just one way that fraud occurs. Of course, TILA 133(a)(1)(B) (Regulation Z 226.12(b)(1))limits the cardholder's liability for unauthorized charges to a maximum of $50 and network rules typically protect the cardholder (me) from liability. See Visa's Zero Liability Policy.

I notified the card issuer, Household Bank, of the unauthorized transactions right away. Within 24 hours, one of the vendors, Wawa, reversed the charge. The other merchant, Turkey Hill gas did not and within 24 hours I received the following email from the card issuer:

This charge represents an automated gas terminal charge. At the time of the
transaction, your credit card was not reported lost or stolen, and this type of
transaction required that your card be present.

In addition, your Account history indicates that this charge is consistent with your spending pattern. For these reasons, we consider this charge to be valid. Although we are unable to assist you, you may pursue this matter further with the merchant.

Note that because the transaction was electronic, we are unable to
provide a receipt.

Unfortunately, we have no recourse to pursue your dispute. Although we are unable to credit your Account, you may still pursue this matter further with the merchant.

If you require additional information, please reply to this message or call us at 1-503-293-4037 and one of our Customer Service Representatives will be glad to help you. To ensure a quick response, please refer to the following reference number: XXXXXXXXX.

For your records, you will receive a separate confirmation letter via
the U.S. Mail.

Sincerely,


Customer Service Department

Knowing I did not authorize the charge, I called the issuer to dispute this denial and to request a new card number. You see, issuers bear the loss generally under network rules in "face-to-face" transactions for unauthorized charges as long as the merchant follows the requisite procedures (often signature and authorization for the transaction). My suspicion is that the issuer would bear the loss in this case, so they wanted to force it back on the consumer. When I called, they told me initially there was nothing they could do, the "documentation" showed that I was in PA and made the charge. I reminded them their own letter said that there was no receipt and the back peddling began. Now, they admitted they were still waiting on a response from the merchant. They had no documentation. They would "reopen" the investigation right away. In addition to talking to them on the phone, I should also respond to the email confirming the conversation.

This type of issuer behavior really gets me going! They knew they did not investigate the transaction, but sent a denial right away of the claim I did not authorize the transaction. The "game" here is to send the denials on fraud claims knowing that only some consumers will pick up the phone and complain. Moreover, when I responded to their email as invited, it turned out to be a "no reply" email address. Since the issuer provides no fax number, I submitted yet another message through their online system. Surely this will take my time in following up on a $25 transaction, but I cannot give a pass to a card issuer attempting to avoid its responsibility under TILA and the Visa network rules regarding fraud. And some wonder why we need a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . . .

- JSM

Business Credit Cards Under the CARD Act

With the restriction from the CARD Act still coming on-line (see More New Credit Card Rules Take Effect), one can expect the card issuers to look for alternate ways to boost their bottom line. Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece "Beware That New Credit Card Offer" highlighting the differences between personal and business credit cards (see also, CARD Act Doesn't Help Small Businesses). The WSJ reported that mailings of applications for business, rather than personal, credit cards are reportedly on the rise. The reason? The Credit Card Accountability and Responsibility Disclosure Act only applies to consumer cards, not business ones.

About 64% of small businesses use credit cards, giving banks a good opportunity to market cards as business cards to avoid the CARD Act's strictures. With applications and pre-approvals up for business cards, it is easy to see how small business owners will need to be savvy about the differences of the cards in their wallet. The advances made with credit cards are simply not universal. Business cards are still subject to the same practices, like interest rate hikes and excessive fees that used to be the norm for consumer cards. It helps businesses to make sure that expenses are deductible for tax reasons (as well as the interest), so their might be incentive to use a business card after all. Aside from possible tax incentives, small business owners might not want to put business debt on personal credit cards as there is a potential for a negative impact on the personal FICO score by increasing the debt to credit ratio.

So, when is a small business issue also a consumer protection issue? One of the lingering problems all along with cards is consumer confusion over terms. The differences in card types are sure to pose problems over time. Moreover, the WSJ reported that some card issuers may be pushing business card applications toward consumers who otherwise would not be looking at these cards and are not likely to understand the differences under the CARD Act. Senator Charles Schumer has already asked the Federal Reserve to look into the practice of marketing business cards to consumers (see Bloomberg). While the CARD Act made headway in the realm of credit card protections, the failure to include business cards may turn out to pose a problem for consumers and small business alike. Pardon my skepticism about the card issuers and their practices, but my expectation is that we will see a rash of business card complaints over deceptive terms.

- JSM

More New Credit Card Rules Take Effect

New credit card rules under the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act took effect this week (See Federal Reserve Press Release)! The Fed, in its effort to be more consumer friendly, has put out another "What You Need to Know" about the rules. One of the big improvements is in the area of late payment fees. Under the old system, card issues could charge basically whatever fee they wanted, whether the card holder was late on a $20 payment or a $100 payment. Now, the fee is set at $25, but the card issuer can charge $35 if one of the last six payments was also late or a larger amount if the company can justify the cost for the higher fee. In any event, the fee cannot be higher than the minimum payment due. For instance, if the minimum due was $20, then the fee cannot exceed $20.

Other new rules eliminate fees for inactivity and extra fees for violating more than one part of the cardholder agreement on a single transaction.

Another twist is requiring card companies to reevaluate rate increases every six months after an increase and to reduce the rate 45 days after an evaluation, if appropriate. Remember all those rate increases companies passed onto card holders prior to the CARD Act's implementation in 2009? Issurers are supposed to lower rates for consumers if the reason for the increase no longer exists. Basically, the Fed is supposed to monitor compliance. I've not heard of any credit card issuers widespread lowering interest rates, but here's to hoping.

- JSM

New Credit Card Rules Go Into Action

Happily, the CARD act provisions are in full effect now. So, what to look for on your statements? I think the disclosure about how long it will take you to pay off your credit card if you only pay the minimum is helpful, especially when coupled with how much you need to pay in order to pay off the debt in just three years. But, consumers must actually read the statements to get the disclosure . . .

CNN has a good piece on credit card reform (click here, as I could not embed it). With card companies increasing rates, there has been a greater proliferation of high rate cards. First Premier has a card for high risk customers that carries a 59.9% interest rate! Yikes! Interestingly, the National Credit Union Administration caps credit unions at 18% interest on credit union cards by law, but private card companies have no such similar limit (See LA Times, Seattle Times). Of course, its all about access to credit, according to the American Banker's Association. While I can understand access to credit and the need for people to build credit, 59.9% is over-the-top and at that rate perhaps some people should not be getting credit, as the cost is too high. Perhaps there is a role for the traditional usury statutes again.

Whose to blame for all this mess? Well, the Supreme Court had a part to play with its 1978 decision in Marquette vs. First Omaha Services making it legal under the National Bank Act for banks to locate in states without interest rate restrictions. Although the Court recognized that this would impair the effectiveness of state usury laws, the problem is "better addressed to the wisdom of Congress than to the judgment of this Court." Despite the passage of the CARD Act, Congress has not addressed the interest rate differential. Perhaps the increases in rates after the CARD Act might provide some impetus for changes to the extent banks overreach in their charging of customers.

- JSM

Interchange Fees: the Silent Visa Tax

As we've seen the federal government tackle credit, debit and gift cards, new attention is gearing up toward card network interchange fees. Interchange fees are the cost of using debit and credit cards charged to merchants for use of the network (Visa, Mastercard, etc.). The fees are about $.75 for every $100 spent and more than if the consumer uses the a debit card and enters their pin number. The GAO's November 2009 report on Rising Interchange Fees found the fees are posing a problem for merchants as they comprise a larger amount of the revenue earned with some merchants complaining that the benefit of cards such as lower labor costs and increased sales are outstripped by the cost of the interchange fees. The fees are enough that some discount retailers, like Costco, don't accept credit cards, but will allow the debit card usage. Of course, retailers cannot possibly refuse to accept VISA cards, for instance, so the fees are here to stay. While the fees may be here to stay, I suspect that the size of the fees will cause them to come under regulatory supervision at some point in the not so distant future. That seems to be the common result when greed and overreaching get to a point that complaint is loud enough. With small business owners trying to keep their businesses afloat during a recession, it is easy to see why there is more compaint about the size of interchange fees.

The New York Times just did a nice video (and article) giving a pretty good overview of the tension between the networks, merchants and ultimately consumer interests.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

- JSM

What You Need to Know About the Card Act

For consumers looking for basic information about the CARD Act, the Federal Reserve just published What You Need to Know: New Credit Card Rules. What credit card companies must tell you:

• when they plan to increase your rate and fees
• how long it will take you to pay off your balance.

The circular also covers all the new rules on fees, rates and limits:

• no rate increases for new cards in the first year
• rate increases only apply to new charges
• restrictions on over-the-limit transactions
• caps on high fee cards
• protections for underage consumers (under 21)

Finally, the circular contains some new rules on billing and payments:

• standardized payment dates and times (i.e. payments due on the same day each month)
• payments applied to highest risk first
• no two-cycle billing.

All and all, the circular is easy to read and even contains handy definitions and links to other information. Hopefully, consumers will be able to find this easily on the Internet (and will read it). Three cheers to the Fed for trying to get the word out.

- JSM

Credit Card Rates Up 20%

This Today Show piece discusses a study about increasing credit card rates which finds a 20% across the board rate increase. On of the consumers interviewed is actually a banker complaining of a 20% increase by Chase on his card.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

- JSM

Dodd Seeks to Freeze Credit Card Rates

In a new move against the credit card interest rates, Senator Christopher Dodd introduced new legislation attempting to freeze credit card rates. It seems that many card companies are attempting to increase rates before the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act goes into effect (see Dodd Bill and Dodd Pushes). The banks argue that the freeze would require them to cut back on lending.

Consumers are justifiably mad about the rate hikes (See Debtors Revolt). The Debtor's Revolt has a new youtube video where she calls Chase Bank for raising her interest rate to 21% and closes the account. While I applaud her "revolt" response to bank's raising rates without good cause to do so, consumers need to be cognizant about the effect that closing accounts has on their credit scores. This is particularly true when it is a longer held account (in the Debtor's Revolt Chase incident, it appears to be a newer account as she mentions an introductory rate). Having received one of these rate increases in the mail myself recently, it reminds us all to read these stock letters from the card companies. While paying off credit card debt has historically been a good thing, the changing strategies of banks raising rates, closing accounts and reducing credit lines may force consumers to be more cautious than ever with card companies (See Suzi Orman, Change in Credit Card Strategy). Let's see if Dodd can plug this hole.

See here for the video:

- JSM

Banks Impose Fees on Those Who Pay Off Credit Cards

Yep, had to know this one was coming. As I watched the Today show this morning, a piece came on about credit card fees (see also MSNBC, USA Today). Not only has the financial crisis resulted in consumers being squeezed by rate hikes (see Consumer Revolt), but banks face new disclosure and other requirements under the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights Act (see Obama Signs). Banks are also scrambling to head off new debit card rules that will surely curtail fees generated by overdraft charges (see Big Banks Alter and Back to Work on Debit). Citibank and Bank of America are the banks imposing these new fees, for consumers who pay off the balance every month, who don't carry a high enough balance or who keep open lines of credit in the event of emergency. Of course, consumers have to be careful in cutting up cards to avoid these fees as it can negatively affect their credit scores. Although consumers can shop around for banks that are not imposing these fees, one must wonder how quickly other banks will follow suit. While credit unions and smaller banks might still provide low cost cards, those options might not be available to many consumers who've been hit hard by the financial crisis. As always, be careful with your cards and reexamine which ones you really want to keep.

Here's the Today show piece:

- JSM

Consumer Revolts Over Increased Credit Card Fees

I liked this story about a woman who took on Bank of America after they increased her credit card rate to 30% after she was late on one payment in 2008 and a second in 2009. After she launched a widely distributed youtube video, Bank of America agreed to reduce her rate to 12.99%. It is a shame that consumers have to go to such lengths to get a favorable bank response. Here are the videos before and after the renegotiation:

- JSM

Are Card Companies Reverse Robin Hoods?

The New York Times is running a series on various forms of payment cards, and a re-occurring theme appears to be whether card companies effectively rob the poor to reward the rich. Are they Reverse Robin Hoods. Last Friday, Floyd Norris's High & Low Finance column claimed that low income consumers actually pay more than the affluent. He reached this conclusion by reasoning that merchants charge everyone the same price, but that those who carry reward credit and debit cards get a rebate from their card companies. The less affluent who pay in cash thus effectively pay more. I have argued elsewhere that Norris's analysis is too simple and may well be wrong. On today's front page, however, Times reporter Andrew Martin has a story entitled "Prepaid, but Not Prepared for Debit Car Fees" that shows that the situation for the poor may be even worse. This piece argues that pre-paid debit cards -- used by many low income people who lack bank accounts -- charge outrageous fees. These cards are a relatively new product not addressed in the recent credit card legislation or bills addressing traditional debit cards linked to checking accounts. One has to wonder why a pre-paid product should trigger high fees given that the issuer is bearing no credit risk or the administrative costs of billing the cardholder.

These articles, of course, raise more questions than they answer. Is it really true that merchants could lower their prices if they stopped accepting credit cards? If so, why don't we see more merchants doing it. Wouldn't the lower prices they could charge give them a competitive advantage? If not, what is it about the payment card market that seems immune to many forms of competition? For example, why would low income consumers waste money on a pre-paid debit card when they could open a bank account with lower fees? Banks seem to be responding to threatened debit card legislation, and American Express has taken a competitive stance on gift card fees, apparently spurred by recent credit card legislation. Shouldn't market pressures produce competition without actual or threatened legislation? In future posts, I'll try to explore some of these questions and consider ways in which the law might help advance consumer interests.